File:BordPD1.jpgPhotograph of a teaching-chalk-board with notes by the teacher on "democratie, reechsstaat, politick (..) and dictatuur". Up to debate if those writings may be eligible for copyright. Strakhov (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Strakhov: also thanks! I think it'll take one or more people who understand Dutch and Dutch culture to sort all of these out. I'm willing to go over them in a DR, I think Donald Trung also won't mind. The obvious copyvios Natuur12 identified and Homer could potentially remain deleted. - Alexis Jazzping plz 06:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, most files are just plain garbage and undeleting them would be a waste of resources. The files seem to be part of some middle school project. The copyright violations are low quality teaching material. The non copyright violations are CBR graphs or self created drawings. While the deletion reason for most files is faulty there's little point in undeleting them. (CBS graps exlcuded). Natuur12 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Undeleted. While the nss nomination by User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 seems to be highly inapropriate, I can say the same about the above comment concerning wheel war. AGF is still valid. Ankry (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Info This is upper-left image from this site. While it is likely to be PD in Hungary, we cannot be sure as we know nothing about the painting history (if it was published first time less than 25 years ago, it may be copyrighted in EU, including Hungary). Also, we know nothing about its US copyright status. NeutralAnkry (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Yeah, I can't find any info on that particular painting from a web search. It looks like it could have been published in the 1920s (1930s also possible). Or it could have been unpublished, which could mean some issue with publication right in the EU but now public domain in the US due to author death date. Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Info I am waiting for another admin opinion before final decission here. Ankry (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I made some review of images recenly nominated by this user and found many that are doubtful IMO. While the most appropriate license templates might be different, they were not totally incorrect, and I found requesting OTRS permission here as an incorrect action that totally misleads uploaders.

The photos seem to be amateur, non-professional, with EXIF. @Jcb: if you see any reasons to doubt these images to be PD, please elaborate. While some images of this uploader are clear copyvios, many of the above are not even copyrightable. IMO, the PD/copyvio ratio among deletion nominations here is too high. Ankry (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You will normally see that such a file is uploaded by a user uploading e.g. 90% blatant copyright violations. (I checked some of the above, were this turned out to be the case). If a user uploads a batch of copyright violations, most admins here just flush the batch, without carefully examining file by file to see if one or two files can be saved. I think this is totally justified as pragmatic use of our limited volunteer resources. If it turns out that some can be undeleted, no problem. Jcb (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: I know that this is common practice, and my reservations concerned rather initial nominations than final deletions. But let's focus on these particular files, which IMO are either just PD (regardles of their origin) or cases where there is no clear doubts whether they are own works of the uploader. Ankry (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Support No evidence that these files are copyright violations. Yann (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I found somewhere the information that it applies also to Ukrainian SSR law; but maybe indeed my mistake. Ankry (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I was recently contacted by Albinfo regarding an upload by Cunolf who is his mentee in German Wikipedia's "adopt-a-user" program. Apparently, although with a somewhat problematic upload history, Cunolf is among those affected by questionable "no permission" tagging by this user. Specifically, this is about File:14 Kundelfingerhof um 2000.png. It's apparently a self-scanned older photograph from a slightly crumpled original in an album (even the photo corners are visible). Cunolf's "own work" declaration therefore seems plausible enough for such a 2000 photograph (it's not unusual to have own older photographic prints and to scan them now) - at least plausible enough for a regular deletion request, it seems to me. Pinging Ellin Beltz who deleted that image, what do you think? Undelete it and convert to DR, would you agree? Gestumblindi (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: how does this affect undeletion process of the above mentioned images? If you wish to undelete another image, create a separate request. Ankry (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose It is uploader's duty to provide evidence of free license if an image was already published. Free license coming directly from the copyright owner, following COM:OTRS instructions is needed, if the evidence cannot be provided on public for any reason. Also, claiming a photo authorship by a non-photographer is copyright violation. Same applies to all four images above. Ankry (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I am a research assistant working in the Chinese University of Hong Kong under Prof Roger Chung. He gave me permission to use this picture on his own Wikipedia page. Please undelete the image. I am going to create an English page for him, as requested by him, using the same image. I am not violating any copyright as he is just using his own picture.

Info @Iseewb: Non-derivatives license is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. However, I see another license info on the above-mentioned page. Is it your mistake or there is a non-intended license declaration there? Ankry (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon, we changed the license to meet the requirements, we are trying to do everything so that our materials are not deleted!

Oppose I do not see a free license there nor information that User:Euamppid is the photographer. Ankry (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Euamppid is a collective account registered on the EUAM Ukraine's PPID (Press & Public Information Department). And we are developing a Wiki page dedicated to EUAM. using photos from our web-site only. Please undelete.--Euamppid (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

First, anybody can say that; we have no evidence that any web-based action taken by this account can be considered a legal contract signed by the organization and that it would be considered such by a Ukrainian and/or US court in case of dispute.

Second, an organization cannot grant that they "personally created the entire original image". Creator is always a human, or a team of humans, not an organization. So any use of {{own}} template by this account should be considered invalid and trigger a DR. Ankry (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Euamppid: Please contact OTRS so they can verify you are who you say you are. - Alexis Jazzping plz 10:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :@Alexis Jazz: I've emailed OTRS. let's see what they say. It's the first time I'm doing this. I did create pages in the past, but the process back then was far less complicated than this time around.--Euamppid (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Oppose If it is taken by U TV, claiming that it is taken by User:Drpmz is violation of Commons rules and copyright law. Why do you suggest that U TV wishes the image to be under cc-by-sa-4.0 license? Any evidence for that? Ankry (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The picture is taken in public area and the intention of the makers of the posters was to show them in public area, that is why there can not be question of author right, just like with public artworks, buildings etc. The picture just gives an impression of election campaigns in public area.--Pieter Deurne (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose "show in public area" is not the same as "allow free use by anybody for any purpose". If the latter was the authors' intention, they need to express it in a written form. Ankry (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Xavi Calle L: A written free license permission from the photo actual copyright holder (presumably the photographer) is needed in order to undelete the photo. They should follow COM:OTRS/es instructions. Fair use images, with no clear evidence of free license cannot be stored in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In case of books that were not published under a free license, you need to follow COM:OTRS instructions. You will need to convince an OTRS operator that you own exclusive copyright to the book cover. Ankry (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Reason: I am the owner of this image since I am the Events Manager of Techfest, IIT Bombay. OmJaiswal81 (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Anybody can say that. @OmJaiswal81: If you cannot prove that the image is freely licensed as anonymous user, basing on publicly available info, COM:OTRS is the only way to do this. Ankry (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kireru: Every image uploaded here must be under a free license; read COM:L for details. Fair use images, without a license granted by the exclusive copyright holder cannot be stored in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to ask you for undelete File:Alcoholika_La_Christo.jpg because I am the owner of the file also I am in the picture and I have the rights for the use of the image,
please do not delete this file.

@Sixundersix: Right "to use" is not enogh. You need to be the exclusive copyright holder in order to license the photo. I see nothing about your rights on this page. Nor about free license. Ankry (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedia Commons: Please note that I am the grandson of Richard Schauffele. Photos relating to Richard Schauffele are historical photos in the ownership of our family and have been published with permission by the family in the past 50 to 100 years. They are indisputably in the public realm.
Sincerely,
Stefan Schauffele (stefantast)--Stefantast (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stefantast: Ownership of photos is unrelated to copyright that belongs to authors until expired or transferred in a contract. Are you the photographer as you claimed during upload? If not, who is? Unpublished photos of unknown photographers are copyrighted in US 120 years since creation. And we cannot store photos with unclear copyright status due to COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The file is Wiki Commons CC0 Waiver and can public on the sites.Fashion Asian (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 179 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can.